As far as I’m aware, under the DMCA, it’s an offense to break the encryption on a DVD to be able to copy it in the first place. So even though all these companies re-wrap the ripped DVD in additional DRM, you still need to break the copy protection to get it onto the hard drive. It’s the breaking of this protection, not the act of copying it, that is illegal. As far as I understand…

Article 12 of the WCT provides in relevant part:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective
legal remedies against any person knowingly performing
any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to
civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that
it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement
of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne
Convention:
(i) to remove or alter any electronic rights
management information without authority;
(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast
or communicate to the public, without authority,
works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights
management information has been removed or altered
without authority.

No idea what the WCT is. But if you don’t have a license from the DVD CCA, then you could run afoul of the law.

Here’s a good explination of how 321 Studios argued their case against the DMCA: http://www.aldermanlawoffice.com/indexpage_6/321StudiosDVDCopyingProductsViolateDMCA.shtml

It looks like if another case was brought to court, it could go either way. It looks like Real would be guilty of running afoul of the DMCA under that court’s interpretation (I’m not a lawyer, so it’s just my opinion).

What does this mean for integration firms?  What is the potential liability to us:

1.  for selling any product that archives DVDs?
2.  for installing DVD ripping software for clients so they can rip DVDs for use with Control4 or Crestron?
3.  for telling clients about DVD ripping software or showing them how to use it?
4.  for installing a C4 or Crestron system that aggregates ripped content?
5.  if the client only rips DVDs s/he owns?
6.  if the client rips DVDs s/he doesn’t own?

Can we be held liable for what would amount to being an accessory to breach of contract?  Any thoughts on the potential liability there?

So long as you/your customer aren’t distributing the copies, I think you’ll be fine. I haven’t heard of a single prosecution against an individual

This SHOULD be illegal.

Most people use this for pure rent-and-burn.

Film studios are a business, operating in Western democracies, and have every right to operate without undue fear of theft.  Just because you thik something is too expensive doesn’t mean you have the right to steal it.  This is the hallmark of a civilized environment.

We must fight back piracy, as otherwise one day all ideas will be declared as having a value of $0, and income will only be possible in manual labor.

Actually, I think most people want to rip their collections so they can watch them from a video server. Most people (that rip them) want to be able to watch their DVDs from a DVD library. The movie industry could have implemented a DVD or BD copying mechanism that would have allowed rips to be wrapped in DRM, but instead they don’t want you to do that. You can do it with music and TV, but not with DVDs or BD (even though managed copy is built into the BD spec).

If the movie indsutry didn’t want people to “steal” their content, then they could easily implement a solution that would give customers what they want, while protecting their interests.

It’s not about theft, it’s about making more money off customers that have purchased discs they already own.

All my opinion of course

Paul @6:49 (9/10) Exactly! 

Many “rent and burn” customers would rather skip that physical burning hassle.  I believe they would pay for a legitimate way to retain a persistent program or movie disc to use at their convenience, on hardware they own. 

A $2 - $3 per-title solution would grow movie sales business (impacting only the inefficient retail sales channel, itself inefficient and adding virtually no value to the end customer’s movie experience) and make piracy moot.

Typicaly (and predominantly) clients purchasing media servers via the CEDIA channel are law abding citizens (who BTW fuel both industries)who simply want the convenience and value add of a server (sounds like fair use to me)- they don’t spend 10-100K to steal. Business needs to protect itself, but not above the rights of private citizens and it’s law abiding patrons. An archive does not break CSS, therefore no infringemnt exists. Furhter, the DMCA and DRM are both technological extortion, not only is it considered illegal to decrypt with out a liscence (which prevents fair use to be enjoyed by lawful owners), but reverse engineering, a process to discover how it works is also considered illegal!

The current approach to copyright infringement is like weeding out the guilty by locking up the innocent.

“Many “rent and burn” customers would rather skip that physical burning hassle.  I believe they would pay for a legitimate way to retain a persistent program or movie disc to use at their convenience, on hardware they own”

This is called a DVD, and it ia sold at a price of $10/$20/$30 not $3.  If collectors no longer bought DVDs (why woudl they of this service were available?) at $20, the movie industry would no longer be able to produce most movies. Few people realize that almost no theatrical releases are actually profitable, and that most movies are not, period.  It is a tough business.

Why woudl it be $3?  Why does anyone owe you this low price for a permaent copy?  Hollywood is not the government, nor a charity.  They don’t owe you anything.  How would you like it if someone told you that from now on, you’d only make  of your income, because “that’s what they’d prefer as consumers of your time”, and that if you did not accept, they would simply steal your paycheck?

“Actually, I think most people want to rip their collections so they can watch them from a video server.”

This is statisticaly completely incorrect.  A huge percentage of videos on computers accross the land are illegal.  I believe that this is what you do, or maybe what your friends do, but many studies (conducted by all kinds of people, even anti-DRM lobby groups) proove that few people make legitemate use of computers or even these devices in regards to DVD copying.

As far as video stores offering not legitemate value, they do.  It’s called social.  You can meet new people at the video store (I know two seriosu couples who met there), you can talk to the clerck (who probably knows a lot about films, all teh ones here are film students), you can get out of your house.

Here’s another thing you can do there:  You can rent filsm legally.  You don’t have to buy them.

An archive does not break CSS, therefore no infringemnt exists.

Sadly, I’m not so sure about that. I don’t believe the courts have ruled on it definitively.

See Can you be sued for helping clients rip DVDs?

I may have read over it and missed (not being cheeky), can you direct me to the specific section / paragraph you are referring to (pls)- JD

Rob, thanks for responding. you wrote:
“… a DVD, is sold at a price of $10/$20/$30 not $3.” Precisely, and much of this DVD price goes to the retail channel and distributors that serve it, not the studio nor its artists.  DVD retailing adds very little, if any, value to the end user’s experience.  Yet it persists, due mainly to an inertia set in motion in 1997 before technology enabled far better ways of distribution.

“If collectors no longer bought DVDs (why woudl they if this service were available?) at $20, the movie industry would no longer be able to produce most movies.” If ten times as many bought them at $3 via legit, persistent download-to-disc storage - or server storage, bypassing discs altogether - they would make great money.  (This has already been achieved on the music side. Video technology is playing catch up but is almost there.)

“Few people realize that almost no theatrical releases are actually profitable. . .  It is a tough business.” Yes, and what you describe predates home video - the studios have had tough times since the 50’s when TV disrupted things, and later, videotape (at first) disrupted them, prompting the Betamax case.  Old story, but sexy new technology this time around.

“Hollywood is not the government, nor a charity.” Yet entrenched, powerful players in Hollywood’s current distribution model fight customer-pleasing technology that ultimately will spur more movie content business than Hollywood ever dreamed.  Just like VHS did before DVD spurred more movie production and profits, even as they disrupted certain channels within the movie business.

Many people will always want to go to the movies, even when software is free (with commercials) or $3 for a clean copy to watch at home when they feel like it.  Maybe $5 in HD.  Others will choose to watch it at home in a no-hassle way.  Forcing them to drive to the store, or wait for snail-mail delivery, just to support inefficient, unsatisfactory retail delivery channels is a misuse of government and courts. 

Let the market decide.  If people prefer the minimal value of browsing WalMart shelves for movies, waiting in a ten-minute checkout line behind mesomorph moms, and slicing fingertips penetrating clamshell cases protected by 3 levels of security tape and stickers, retail movie sales may indeed survive! But if they want lots of film content without the noise, sell them a great home theater system and a way to watch what they want to watch with no hassle and a sense they are getting what they pay for, no less. 

Remember also that technology brings competition to movies - immediate thrills via a game, right now?  Or should we drive to Best buy to get a $20 video may want?  Hollywood might be shooting itself in the foot fighting downloads!

Joel,

Speaking for myself and as a non-lawyer, I don’t believe that infringement requires circumvention nor the other way around.  I.E. you can infringe without circumvention and you can circumvent without infringement.  One does not necessarily imply the other. 

Patrick
(opinions are mine, not my employer’s)

If the DVDCCA or MPAA or other movie industry strong-arm dinosaurs ever actually start suing end users of these products, I wonder if they will include Spielberg, Bruckheimer, Cruise, Hanks, Afflack, Damon and a host of other hollywood Kaleidescape system owners?

If the DVDCCA, MPAA or other movie industry strong-arm dinosaurs ever actually start suing end users of these products, I wonder if they will include Spielberg, Bruckheimer, Cruise, Hanks, Afflack, Damon and a host of other hollywood Kaleidescape system owners in their suits?

Patrick,

Not being an attorney myself, I would agree with you.

There are solutions though which can protect the copyright of the content while at the same time allowing the consumer an improved experience and greater access to their legally purchased content.

Archive Formats exist which can make the immediate playback of a file on any other system impossible with out a lengthy conversion process, making it just as costly to “steal”. This would mitigate infringement, require no circumvention and use the current playback licenses offered upon playback.

The data could be safer in a media server than it is on the disk…

>>> Answers below:

“… a DVD, is sold at a price of $10/$20/$30 not $3.” Precisely, and much of this DVD price goes to the retail channel and distributors that serve it, not the studio nor its artists. 

>> Actually, This is true.

DVD retailing adds very little, if any, value to the end user’s experience.  Yet it persists, due mainly to an inertia set in motion in 1997 before technology enabled far better ways of distribution.

>> There’s more here than that.  For one, who wants a download as a gift - you can’t wrap it- a DVD makes a nice gift.

Second, Walmart is an awful environment, I agree, but my local video store, a nice walk in a pretty neighborhood, where I often meet friends and neighbours, is not.  Amazon sells videos, you can get them delivered to your door, and Netflix rents (also no visit to Walmart).

“If collectors no longer bought DVDs (why woudl they if this service were available?) at $20, the movie industry would no longer be able to produce most movies.” If ten times as many bought them at $3 via legit, persistent download-to-disc storage - or server storage, bypassing discs altogether - they would make great money.  (This has already been achieved on the music side. Video technology is playing catch up but is almost there.)

>> Here you re simply wrong.  Itunes and the like make almost no money for the recording industry, maybe %3 of CD sales pre-napster.  If the film industry took a � revenue hit, Los Angeles would be decimated, thousands of people (tens of thousands) would be out of work, and there would be no new movies.  You can’t make good movies without money.  You just can’t.  It’s not like a song that you can make with a few guys in a garage.  I mean, Blair Witch project was a fun novelty, but how many times can you watch that?  How would you like it if all movies were of that visual quality from now on?  It’s npot aboyt cameras, it’s about years of training to becoem a great actor, writer, cinematographer, etc., it’s about mopntsh finding THE perfect location, it’s about a lot of things that cost most of the budget.  heck, I have access to a pro HD Red One camera for free, the same one used by majopr studios, and to free lighting equipement.  That means id I want to shoot a movie I have 15% of my budget covered.  The rest is the valuable time of highly trained people, physical realities of travelling to locations, building/renting sets, etc.

Also, there is not a 10x market that would watch a film if only they didn’t have to go to Bluckbuster.  Research shows that people see all the films that interest them, sooner or later, and pay what they have to.  They are not impeded in any significant numbers from seeing movies because of the cost of in-store rentals, pay-per-view, or any other reasonably priced distribution channel.  As such, that $3 thing would directly eat away at existing channels.

“Few people realize that almost no theatrical releases are actually profitable. . .  It is a tough business.” Yes, and what you describe predates home video - the studios have had tough times since the 50’s when TV disrupted things, and later, videotape (at first) disrupted them, prompting the Betamax case.  Old story, but sexy new technology this time around.

>> Except downloading is not really a profitable model, as proven by ITunes. 

“Hollywood is not the government, nor a charity.” Yet entrenched, powerful players in Hollywood’s current distribution model fight customer-pleasing technology That ultimately will spur more movie content business than Hollywood ever dreamed.  Just like VHS did before DVD spurred more movie production and profits, even as they disrupted certain channels within the movie business

>> NO.  First off, viewer free time is already saturated with content.  As mentionned, they are already able to see all movies they are interested in (in Western nations) and have time for, either in the theatre, home-video, TV, etc.  There are no consumers missing movies because they are not available for legal download via the Internet, so no sales are currenly being lost - should we reduce the price of these sales?  No. 

Secondly, we fight technology that has proven itself to only destroy profits, and to be incapable of generating significant revenue.  There is no download service out there that makes any real money, despite LOTS of support from Hollywood.  If consumers will be pleased by ad-free cost-free movies, then we cannot provide that.  We have rent too.  I’m sure consumers would also like free steaks and beer, or steaks and beer at 90% off.  Rent-and-Burn and downloading are not a business model, they are a charity model.

Many people will always want to go to the movies, even when software is free (with commercials) or $3 for a clean copy to watch at home when they feel like it.  Maybe $5 in HD. 

>> Research shows that this is not true.  Soem people will, but there would be a huge market share lost.
Others will choose to watch it at home in a no-hassle way.  Forcing them to drive to the store, or wait for snail-mail delivery, just to support inefficient, unsatisfactory retail delivery channels is a misuse of government and courts. 

>> We are protecting out copyrights, and our right to sell our whares (OUR whares, not publicly owned ones, or whares produced via tax dollars) any way we please, whether you or anyoen else thinsk we should be doing it soem other way or not.  Maybe some new models would be more efficient (although many people who makes statements have not read any market reserach, and assume that others are like them, which is wrong) but as a business, like any business, we have the right to chose any distribution model we want, and not be subjected to theft.  You cannot run a civilized nation if anytime people don’t like the business model or distribution habits of a corportaion they feel entitled to steal from them. 

Without laws to protect ideas, no one who has them could ever make money from them.  The only remaining jobs would eb manual labor.

“Let the market decide.  If people prefer the minimal value of browsing WalMart shelves for movies, waiting in a ten-minute checkout line behind mesomorph moms, and slicing fingertips penetrating clamshell cases protected by 3 levels of security tape and stickers, retail movie sales may indeed survive! But if they want lots of film content without the noise, sell them a great home theater system and a way to watch what they want to watch with no hassle and a sense they are getting what they pay for, no less. 

>> This would be great, and works well, so far, only with pay-per view on HD recorder boxes.

Remember also that technology brings competition to movies - immediate thrills via a game, right now?  Or should we drive to Best buy to get a $20 video may want?  Hollywood might be shooting itself in the foot fighting downloads!

>> Hollywood does not fight all downloads.  They fight teh ones that, looking at extensive market research and past experiments, lose potential revenue rather than augmenting it.

@ robruffo

You sound like the same studio executives that are completely clueless with the current technology and how to move yoru industry forward.

Open your eyes before you need a handout like the auto industries.

A DVD ripping war is set to escalate with Hollywood studio’s set to go head to head with technology Companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape in an effort to stop the copying of DVD’s to storage devices.
A DVD ripping war is set to escalate with Hollywood studio’s set to go head to head with technology Companies like RealNetworks and Kaleidescape in an effort to stop the copying of DVD’s to storage devices.Also being sucked into the fight are Companies like Control 4, AMX, Escient and Crestron all consumer electronics companies that have recently released DVD storage or ripping technology.Last night RealNetworks who recently released RealDVD, which is a suite of DVD copying software decided to take the fight right up to the DVD Copy Control Association who have been sniping from the sidelines by claiming that the Real Networks software is illegal.

how to lose weight fast